The Student Room Group

Your 6 most disliked UK politicians active today

Scroll to see replies

Oh sorry, earlier I quoted Ed Miliband for all six, but I have changed my mind

Spoiler

Original post by ibzombie96
It may be our responsibility to improve the NHS ourselves, but we fundamentally do not operate unless we have carrots dangled in front of us, and for most people, that is money. It is noble to want the public sector to improve the NHS, but unless people see a clear motive, there is insufficient reason to engender that change. You must see that greed is a more powerful - or at least more widespread - phenomenon than altruism.

You present two things as mutually exclusive when they are not. A firm can work to improve the health service for the people of this country and still make profit - I have said why earlier.

Let's say you are on benefits, and are able to take 60 quid out of the hole in the wall every week. £40 goes on living expenses, and the other £20 are not needed. You have effectively made a profit - you cash inflow is £60 and your costs are £40; a profit of £20. Do you think you should give back that £20 on the basis that 'our taxes' have given rise to your profit? I would suggest not, and if it is ethically acceptable for an individual to do that, I really don't see it being fair or consistent to suggest that it is unethical for a firm to do the same purely because it is a firm.


Yes, actually.
Original post by Guills on wheels
Yes, actually.


OK, in that case we have axiomatic differences in our perception of profit as a concept. That I can't remedy - it doesn't make me right, but you are, incidentally, very much in the minority.
Original post by ibzombie96
OK, in that case we have axiomatic differences in our perception of profit as a concept. That I can't remedy - it doesn't make me right, but you are, incidentally, very much in the minority.


It was never anyone's responsibility to do so.

I know. I'm working on that.
Original post by ibzombie96
It is very hard to argue with you when you assert that the government bribes everyone. Look, on these committees, there are plenty of opposition MPs who are very keen to get noticed by the Labour elite - it is therefore in their interest to hammer the government and it would presumably take quite a lot of money to make them quit their examinations of the government. Do you not see that? So please, take up your problems with the Health Select Committee - I'm sure they will be delighted to hear your impressively-researched and coherent argument.

And is it that unlikely that a donor to a political party (which are nearly always rich organisations such as big firms or unions etc) is involved in a business interest that is in some way connected to the government? I would suggest not.

I'll tell you what it is: it's called outsourcing. That's not the same as privatisation.


Which will become the same thing when they start charging for it. They should not have touched the NHS- they destroy it at every opportunity
Original post by DarrenBCFC
Which will become the same thing when they start charging for it. They should not have touched the NHS- they destroy it at every opportunity


Bloody hell - they don't become the same thing when they start charging. Privatisation is when a state-owned firm is sold to the private sector - what, in this definition, is said about charging money? Nothing. The Royal Mail was a nationalised business yet charged money to its customers.
Original post by ibzombie96
Bloody hell - they don't become the same thing when they start charging. Privatisation is when a state-owned firm is sold to the private sector - what, in this definition, is said about charging money? Nothing. The Royal Mail was a nationalised business yet charged money to its customers.


You Know what i mean- there is some paid services at the NHS- but the poor gets it for free( free sugery ,prescriptions.etc) which is a complete kettle of different fish to the royal mail which is no longer public owned as crackhead George is going to sell R Mail and RBS of at a loss for a reason to cut welfare
Original post by DarrenBCFC
You Know what i mean- there is some paid services at the NHS- but the poor gets it for free( free sugery ,prescriptions.etc) which is a complete kettle of different fish to the royal mail which is no longer public owned as crackhead George is going to sell R Mail and RBS of at a loss for a reason to cut welfare


Royal mail is being sold at a loss? I would like to see the analysis to show that. As for RBS, was it Mr Osborne or his predecessor that decided to buy RBS at an inflated price?

And his does it allow welfare cuts? If anything it means they can be either avoided completely out avoided fit longer.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
Royal mail is being sold at a loss? I would like to see the analysis to show that. As for RBS, was it Mr Osborne or his predecessor that decided to buy RBS at an inflated price?

And his does it allow welfare cuts? If anything it means they can be either avoided completely out avoided fit longer.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I am in no way defending the previous Chancellor but the bank would have collapsed otherwise. And I do believe the rest of royal mail is being sold at a loss, but I'm not certain so don't quote me on it :tongue:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by PetrosAC
I am in no way defending the previous Chancellor but the bank would have collapsed otherwise. And I do believe the rest of royal mail is being sold at a loss, but I'm not certain so don't quote me on it :tongue:

Posted from TSR Mobile


The fact that the government was forced to pay such an outrageous price just highlights flaws in the system and it would have been nice if there was a way to have forced the purchase for less. I would assume it's a case of the shareholders saying "well, the government will never let RBS go under so we control the price" rather than "these shares are going to be worth **** if RBS goes under, sell sell sell". Not dissimilar to agency staff in the NHS " we have the staff, they need the staff, we set the price " whereas the NHS should just take the flak for a short term staying crisis and say to them "you have the staff, we're the only people taking them, we will pay this much, take it or leave it"

As for RM, to determine a profit of loss we need a break even price, easy enough for RBS, not so much with royal mail. How do we define it? Do we take the total cost to set up RM and apply necessary adjustments fur the near five centuries? Well, we could, but it would be near impossible and probably highly inaccurate. How about drawing with profits over those years? Surely it's simplest to merely argue "well, whoever set the price last time ****ed up, but the market has now established its value". I am rather concerned if this last 30% is sold at anything more than a small loss according to market value.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
Royal mail is being sold at a loss? I would like to see the analysis to show that. As for RBS, was it Mr Osborne or his predecessor that decided to buy RBS at an inflated price?

And his does it allow welfare cuts? If anything it means they can be either avoided completely out avoided fit longer.

Posted from TSR Mobile


He is selling them under the value- its typical of them British Gas was on they sold back in the day, also British Steel - but thats fine because they only care about a select few.
Original post by DarrenBCFC
He is selling them under the value- its typical of them British Gas was on they sold back in the day, also British Steel - but thats fine because they only care about a select few.


They care so other that they put your taxes down, improve your education, keep the rich losing fit your healthcare, help you to get a job etc. Then again, I guess they do only care about a armrest few, after all, we are only about 1pc of the world population.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by DarrenBCFC
You Know what i mean- there is some paid services at the NHS- but the poor gets it for free( free sugery ,prescriptions.etc) which is a complete kettle of different fish to the royal mail which is no longer public owned as crackhead George is going to sell R Mail and RBS of at a loss for a reason to cut welfare


Ugghh there is just so much wrong with this.

The NHS is a different case to the Royal Mail exactly because the Royal Mail was privatised and the NHS is not being privatised.

How does selling off state-owned business allow the Exchequer to cut welfare?
Original post by ibzombie96
Ugghh there is just so much wrong with this.

The NHS is a different case to the Royal Mail exactly because the Royal Mail was privatised and the NHS is not being privatised.

How does selling off state-owned business allow the Exchequer to cut welfare?


Selling it below par- to make the bankers and the people in the city richer and the people on the minimum wage have the cutbacks they choose. Where do you live south coast? London? come and live in the West Midlands I have never met a Conservative voter. It is Labour and UKIP who are the two biggest parties on total votes
Original post by DarrenBCFC
Selling it below par- to make the bankers and the people in the city richer and the people on the minimum wage have the cutbacks they choose. Where do you live south coast? London? come and live in the West Midlands I have never met a Conservative voter. It is Labour and UKIP who are the two biggest parties on total votes


They may have sold it for less than it was worth, but it was still a massive source of revenue for the Exchequer - if anything, it allowed them to cut at a slower rate.

I don't know what point you are making with your last sentence - could you please tell me what you're arguing here?
Original post by Jammy Duel
They care so other that they put your taxes down, improve your education, keep the rich losing fit your healthcare, help you to get a job etc. Then again, I guess they do only care about a armrest few, after all, we are only about 1pc of the world population.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Exclusive to the richest 5% or so. In My opinion the NHS has become worse in the last 5 years or so
Original post by ibzombie96
They may have sold it for less than it was worth, but it was still a massive source of revenue for the Exchequer - if anything, it allowed them to cut at a slower rate.

I don't know what point you are making with your last sentence - could you please tell me what you're arguing here?


Oh in the W Mids area the tories just give us the immigrants now because London is full. In my area there is now more foreigners then there is white people.

You Mean do his mates in the City a deal give the rich more money when the share prices inflate meaning there is nothing left for the working man. They make me sick- I have never seen a party elected which has broke as many promises. They where only elected because of the scaremongering that the SNP will be governing England- and the fact 3 million Labour voters did not show. Also going back to the point of the SNP they may have done well this time but the scots will go back to labour as they now have a conservative government. Hated in Scotland, Hated in the Midlands and Hated in Yorkshire ,If Labour was to reinstall Blair overnight and there was a reelecion the conservatives would not have a chance. Aslong as Labour get someone with half a brain they will win over 400 seats in the 2020 election.
This is the thread I've been looking for my whole life

1. Diane Abbott
2. George Galloway, even if he recently lost his seat...
3. Theresa May. Even as a Tory I really dislike her because of the Snooper's charter.
4. Jeremy Corbyn
5. Harriet Harman
6. Liz Kendall, Tory in disguise (come to the dark side Liz, betray your brethren)
Original post by DarrenBCFC
Exclusive to the richest 5% or so. In My opinion the NHS has become worse in the last 5 years or so


Far from.
And of this is the case then why has the percentage of tax paid by the richest increased and by the poorest decreased?

You are the typical lefty "the right is evil and wet must all be equal in having nothing" fool.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
Far from.
And of this is the case then why has the percentage of tax paid by the richest increased and by the poorest decreased?

You are the typical lefty "the right is evil and wet must all be equal in having nothing" fool.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Do you see this fair

Scenario - Millionaire - £250,000 a year tax cut
Pensioner who can't relocate £15 a week bedroom tax

Quick Reply